Farr v. Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, California

Background

A reporter for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner published widely read stories about the Manson trial. After the trial ended, the judge ordered the reporter to reveal his information sources. The reporter said his stories came from two of the trial attorneys and another person who was under the court’s publicity restriction. He refused to name names and was jailed for civil contempt. California law contains a provision that generally bars holding news workers in contempt for protecting sources, but the state Court of Appeal declined to treat the reporter as immune from the trial court’s power to control its proceedings. State criminal charges appeared unlikely because of time limits, so the civil contempt case became the avenue for punishment.

Reasoning

The narrow question was whether the reporter should remain jailed while his federal habeas appeal is pending and whether the clash between a trial court’s need to limit prejudicial publicity and a reporter’s source protection is settled by existing precedent. The Justice noted that past cases like Branzburg involved different circumstances and did not resolve this precise issue. Because the legal question is new, substantial, and not clearly governed by prior decisions, the Justice concluded that it was in the interest of justice to free the reporter on his own recognizance while the appellate process continues.

Real world impact

The immediate effect is the reporter’s temporary release while the appeal proceeds. The ruling leaves open the larger question of when reporters can be compelled to identify sources, especially in states where civil contempt can lead to lengthy imprisonment. It signals the Court may eventually have to resolve this recurring clash between a fair trial and a free press, but this order is not a final decision on the reporter’s legal protections.